better. for the time being, china poses no security threat to the united states in africa and probably will not do so for at least the next five years. other emerging powers are also playing a great role in africa and attention needs to be given to them. there's been the return of russia, india is becoming a significant competitor of china on the continent. brazil, iran, turkey, saudi arabia, united arab emirates, vietnam, thailand, indonesia, malaysia, singapore and cuba are all returning or engaging in the first time in a major way. areas for cooperation with china include in the health sector particularly anti-malarial programs, also neglected tropical diseases, the agricultural sector and u.n. peace keeping operations. ..

there is a very large research rich country emerging from a period of intense conflict in the country decided to focus on development. we need to modernize our infrastructure and developer ports. soon they had a visit from a wealthy asian country that had become the major can humor of their oil. the countryside, we'll make you a bargain. we'll give you line of credit with $10 billion you can use that credit to develop your ports. our companies can help you modernize their minds.

many in the pork that you were suspicious, but nonetheless they agree to the bargaining of what began. as a list of the story come you probably think which two countries? china angola, china and the drc. china was one of these countries, but it was a large poor country with oil and the line of credit to be repaid with a whale was offered by japan in the late 1970s. why am i telling you this story today? i am telling you this story because of several different reasons. one is this arrangement was not based on a period there was a market weight line of credit that just japan offered to china. china said this is something that could be his first benefit to this is something that benefited japan come and pick up focus and services to china and it benefited china because they could import things they didn't have an international credit rating to burrow for you.

now, china is operating in africa at as many of the framers that it is learned by being a nation power and some of those complement relationships with japan. it's a different bottle of engagement and much of this is not actually involve official development aid. it's much closer to japan's engagement asian countries. so there are a lot of different tools and instruments of the chinese hat to engage in africa that we don't have her that we have a much smaller level. so for example they have resource infrastructure loads. i would argue these are not confessional the because the very large trends are all based on london inter bank rates, and allow countries poor credit ratings to bribe stand pay with tumorous exports. they set up overseas economics that ishak chinese companies to set up manufacturing in africa. cost become expensive in china. they have $5 billion equity fund

to encourage chinese investment and joint ventures in africa. table $1 billion fund for small and medium enterprises. they set up agriculture centers to get chinese agribusinesses involved in africa. most of these are not officially, but they are about development. more importantly, they respond by the request of african leaders with assistants are building infrastructure and creating jobs in africa. let me give you two quick stories. when liberia emerged from more, allen johnson certainly set your main priority was frozen infrastructure, but the international donors for not providing with infrastructure. the chinese stepped up and said we will build roads and another daughters became interested in rows. only the what the millennium challenge corporation for african governments doing well and want to make their own decisions on how to spend their money, they are investing in infrastructure. this is an important factor. china is not a new effort in

africa. many of the things they are doing in africa are nontransparent. we do not have information. that's the legacy of many things. partly because it's mainly business. we don't know a lot about our main companies operate in africa even though we do with data. the figures i can talk about more than a question-and-answer period about what we know about actual dimensions of engagement. i want to make three vital points. one is that china is about realism versus the libraries and. china should be seen in context. it's still developing and has the norms and standards of a developing country. it is much more common with other developing countries finance. that means it presents challenges. india, brazil and other countries and ambassador shinn mentioned have the same level of corruption and operated other kinds of ways.

this is a broader challenge and should be seeing out of context. the second is we need better information. our information that china is not good a way to not do a good job about collecting better information. and finally, we have a problem and that the arena for engagement that engagement process of listeners for how to engage internationally as the oecd in china is not a member. we have to figure out a way to deal with this. thank you. >> thank you very much, dr. brautigam. dr. hayes. >> is very good to see all of you and certainly senator lugar is great to see you again as well. i would like to speak more from the private sector point of view of course. as i noted in my written testimony, i am honored to be invited to provide testimony. much of my life has been built around both china and africa relations with the united states and certainly currently status

as president of the corporate counsel in africa spread to get him interested in both regions of the world. this issue is of high urgency. as 200 companies representing about 85% of all u.s. foreign direct investment in africa. as we attempt to expand u.s. trade with an investment in africa, the relationship with china becomes increasingly important to the american economy. china's interest in africa to go beyond economic and include wider political influence on a global scale as does ours. the global marketplace, china is and will continue to be an aggressive competitor to the united states and other nations including those in africa. they have every right to be such. no one should challenge china's right to be engaged in africa. both are free to seek any and all trading partners. neither is china alone increasing investment in africa. the emerging economies of brazil, russia, india, south

africa has a group are outpacing u.s. investment in africa. however, china does enjoy certain advantages over the united dates and other nations, particularly following rules and practices of the oecd. those rules for the reverie of public officials official's money for them as well as eliminate predatory practices on export credit financing. chinese counterfeit goods have flooded african markets not only undercutting u.s. companies, the creative products driving them out of the market, but also a health risk with counterfeit medicines. international patent rights are ignored has implications for supporting development of new projects in manufacturing as well as exporting nations. chinese populations also increasing throughout africa with major social economic implications for the continent. while this is the business of african host nations and china, it does bring questions of future stability of nations as well as create questions surround the use of local versus

imported labor. the u.s. strategy towards china should be twofold. u.s. government should do more to help american companies compete in africa have a far greater u.s. private sector engagement in africa will not only help african development, but also help rebuild the manufacturing base in america. our aid program will be shifted towards building up vibrant private sector throughout africa and u.s.a. should recognize the u.s. as a partner in african development. i think our competitive advantage in this regard will be if we can compete and work with a vibrant during africa than 30 private sector is more in our line and we can develop that. that's one of the process we should be placing. in this regard, many members reflected in legislation being developed by senator durbin then they make it possible for u.s. companies to compete on a more even playing field. we should pick as china will be a long-term player in africa and

china offers an opportunity for america in terms of economic hardships. cooperation will require time and establishment of trust, but there are some business partnerships between u.s. and china in africa, but also areas that professor shinn rightly noted we can cooperate in such a south sudan and the horn of africa. much of the cooperation will be built through joint ventures in the u.s. if the u.s. and china can find common ground in africa, not only will the u.s.-china relationship strained than, but so too will the benefits to africa. in this regard, the corporate council on africa will lead a delegation of businesses to china in february to meet on possible cooperation in africa. thank you. >> at five to thank all three witnesses and i will begin a first round of seven minute questions if i may.

first, mr. hayes, let me follow up on your concluding point. given the trends shown in the charts in your testimony about the review, what specific policy recommendations would you make for u.s. government action that would make american business more competitive with regard to china? what are the areas you see that might have potential for cooperation? >> i think they are several areas. one is the export import bank. i think it has played a less than stellar role in supporting u.s. business in africa. i think his attempts to change that, but certainly legislation is a change within xm bank is required. the chinese xm bank supports its own business is then china does have the private sector. some businesses phenomenally higher pay many times than the u.s. support of its businesses.

he can make decisions quickly. xm bank is well documented. takes a long time to make decision and hurts american business. we can give you one horror story after another. i won't go into that. i think the usaid should shift its development towards the area. again towards developing the private sector in africa. most of the workers in other areas. i think it could help a great deal in developing the dirt. if we can develop a middle class, the countries will be far more stable and we will have more reliable business partners. i think we have to make more business organizations in africa. in terms of cooperation, certainly we have common interest in seeing south sudan is the stable area. so certainly that is one area. the second area is those areas where account the needs can cooperate, we china may be

lacking certain areas. certainly we've seen general electric operate with chinese companies in africa. there is those areas, particularly on infrastructure. the reality is that if stewart finished work with chinese companies as well as others because they have been a fetus already and it is a way of getting morag david china and africa. >> thank you. ambassador shinn come you mention african states under pressure from the u.s. and the west to improve governance practices are human rights record or ethically to do so would they know they can rely on china for support. he noted zimbabwe and japan among others. has china's economically driven eight policy undermine u.s. policy goals in terms of promoting democracy and human rights and good governance? is there any investment and political engagement that may have power or entrenched undemocratic or repressive

regimes first? sidekick, what do you see as the long-term benefit broadly for the average african of the increased chinese investment engagement and africa? what is its impact on the ground? and then got her brautigam, if you just the same two issues. >> the short answer to your question, senator is his chinese involvement in africa has to some degree undermined western coast generally of trying to improve democratization, good governance and human rights. i don't think i was the intention of chinese fallacy. this shows that they have a different philosophical approach to dealing with countries around the world as does the united states. having said that this inconsistency is that u.s. policies. i could identify a couple african countries that a very autocratic. while the united states is not done much to improve the human rights situation, but in terms of chinese policies across the

board. it's a policy of fate without political conditions, investment without political conditions other than the china principle. that is just not the way the u.s. approaches the situation. the two major examples are those i stated earlier, zimbabwe and japan. others perhaps does stand out quite as much as those two countries. it even a country like ethiopia or the united states is very good relations on the one hand was like at the same time to see a better human rights days. because ethiopia has a strong relationship with china, it is fairly easy for ethiopia to say wait a minute, we know where we can get additional help if we need it. of course the united states has other concerns in antioquia in terms of its policy. it does certainly complicate the ability of the united states to pursue an improvement in human rights policies and practices and good governance.

in terms of china's long-term investment or its investment in the continent and its impact on the long-term, i think i would have to basically give them a positive response to that. they have indeed gone heavily into infrastructure, but they have done that because that is precisely what the africans have requested and the africans were requesting an improvement in infrastructure at a time in the west had basically opted out. angola is a classic old following the civil war in angola at the beginning of this century when it came to an end. the angolans wanted the west to come in, invests a lot of money to rebuild their infrastructure and the west essentially said no, we are really not that interested at this point. they went to china and china said we be more than happy to do it of course. we expect you to pay these back to sending oil to china. by the way, we have good chinese

companies that will build all these projects for you and would even have a component of chinese labor available, and help to construct the project. so it was certainly a good deal for china, but china was the only one who is suffering to do this sort of thing. in the final analysis is the african countries don't have much improved infrastructure they will never improve economies. they cannot continue at the level they were at 10 years ago in terms of infrastructure. in that sense, china has done them a favor. across the board the effort china has done to invest on the continent with some exceptions has generally been a plus. >> dr. brautigam. i'm about out of time. what impact has it had on the u.s. values agenda to have an expansive presence in the economy? >> thank you. i just did a paper on this recently and they actually looked empirically at this than there is no evidence across the

continent that political rights and freedoms have declined in general between 2000 the president. and countries were engagement is larger, there is evidence there is systematic impact times you had right or political liberties and freedoms. so we have an impression that there is then a negative impact and it largely comes from the case of sudan and zimbabwe, where the impact has been negative. by and large i don't think we see it's been negative across the continent. we can see with examples that are quite recent. in sudan when the countries broke up and have a referendum to enshrine that amount, cheney sent a delegation rather than to fight to keep the two parts together. we see this in guinea where there is a coup in people's thought and's presence there would make it so they wouldn't have a new election and bring in government and that didn't happen. they had an election, the most free in their history although it wasn't perfect.

we see this in zambia where the leader quite heavily favored by the chinese did not win the election and they moved into relationship with someone quite opposed to their presence. by and large they are moving less than a negative direction than we usually think. in terms of impact, i moved to what professor shin said. i see a lot of people employed by chinese companies. this is against countries that the conventional wisdom. the longer a chinese company is present in africa, the more proportion they hire tends to be african and this makes economic sense for them. what we find is the problems tend to be not hiring local people but treating him well and they do not treat them certainly not the level in american company would. labor standards, protection safety standards are abysmal and roughly at the level they are in china. >> thank you very much.

senator isaacs then. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think ambassador shinn investment in infrastructure in the west of the point of what stephen hayes says i've observed we need to do a better job as the government of facilitating u.s. competitive investment in africa. the line between business in china is kind of blurred, but they are cleared the united states. the catholic altercation facility really is transformed that country, what kind of things do we need to do from your disk, mr. hayes, to facilitate investment from a government standpoint in africa? [inaudible] >> in addition to what i said in response to senator koons is i also think we need a far stronger commercial presence among africa.

we are cutting back or commercial offices now at exactly the wrong time. we are actually diminishing our presence on africa in a commercial offices. secondly, as i mentioned in the paper, the written testimony i think at least johnny carson needs to be praised by putting more emphasis on economic knowledge by ambassadors because we are beyond traditional diplomacy. if we are going to compete and strengthen their political interest in africa, our embassies will be far more attuned to economic realities. so i think there needs to be far greater emphasis on that. those are two things that could be done right away. >> in other words, do better through promoting u.s. investment by private sector companies. >> certainly that and certainly greater support of the private sector nationally.

we need national leadership to tell the american people why africa is important. i don't think that's been explained. >> dr. brautigam, you are talking so quickly he can't write as fast as you were talking. you made a great statement about realism versus alarmism with regard to china and america's kids and i think what i heard you say is we should be realistic to understand china is like africa, still a developing country. did i hear that right? so we should not be large by what they're trying. tell me what the alarmism part was. >> thank you for your question. the real islam is a need to be seen in context, that it's a far smaller player than the west. although the dimensions are quite large compared to any western country by and large, it is smaller than the west combined. and they have a lot in common with other rising economic

powers. it's unhelpful to single them out as the chinese of low labor standards in chinese have corruption. this is true in general of india, brazil and the other emerging market players also operating in africa and also a challenge to us. it's helpful to address them commonly. it would be helpful for diplomacy as well. >> both u.n. ambassador shen preferred the city to shen. one of you said sudan is a real option for china. whoever said that, which you amplify and not? >> i'd be happy to come the senator. other situation in north sudan, khartoum government on the other hand. both of these regimes if they don't make a lot of changes for the positives soon, her on track for becoming failed states. it's often said about our sudan

that is the case. it's not often said about south sudan. neither country wants to have that happen and neither china nor the united states wants that to happen. there's a mutual interest here in china and the united states to see the comprehensive peace agreement achieves success to ensure the relationship between the and south. the infrastructure for exporting and refining oil is located in the north. 75% of the oil is now in the south and most oiler in the south. for the time being, the south has no other than sending oil out to the north it is a northern refineries. therefore, they are still basically joined at the hip. and they cannot allow them to china and u.s. cannot allow for them to let the situation very down into some sort of conflict

began. i think it's an ideal situation for the two countries to try to work with both juba and cartoons to ensure that the cpa works. and a sense, you can argue china has greater interested in the u.s. because china built and owns much of the infrastructure and the northern part of sudan. >> we have made a critical point. the short term interest of the united states and apply to your observation as well, making sure disagreement works in these countries don't separate. not only is it in the infrastructure but kenya and somalia have an expansion of what's already a bad situation in somalia and northern kenya. they could blow up like a powder cake. you know if our embassies and state department is doing enough to reach out to the chinese to partnering ways to keep the cpa together?

>> i don't know, senator. i am not in government now so i am not privy to that kind of a relationship. i have no doubt there are contacts. i visited khartoum and met with the chinese and american embassies in at that time there was some contact. that was a number of years ago. >> just to add to that because it's germane, the adversary has been to china and tax rabbis unchain and fasted and. i think it's incumbent on senator koons and myself to engage princeton or the state department in a meeting to make sure we follow up on this because it's a very cogent point. thank you offered testimony. >> thank you, senator cardin. >> thank you for holding this hearing. this is an extremely important area for us to explore. obviously we need to do a better job ourselves and our relationships with africa on

trade. i am proud of the state of maryland that we have established an african trade office without either way at the federal government and small business administration. we have a natural ties between many countries in africa and the business community particularly in the washington suburban areas. we have built on that and that the relationships that i think would be very beneficial for business growth in america, but also will help develop the african economy, which is so critically important for stability and for a market for u.s. goods. that is the most important thing we can do is enhance their own relationship. i want to ask a question though of concern to me about china and africa. china is interested in their own goals and have very little concern about the governance issues in the countries that they deal with. at least that is the impression that i have.

when we deal with particularly foreign assistance, we deal with issues such as conditionality come in making sure women's rights are taken in dealing with transparency. the senator lugar, we were done transparency, which is a big issue dealing with resource, not being occurs, but an advantage to a country in africa certainly is a continent that is very much involved in this issues. we see with the anticorruption issues. i guess my question to you is, is there any indication that china's participation in africa has been a negative influence on those issues such as advancement of women's rights, transparent the, anticorruption, those types of issues that we've seen any indication in china's

involvement offers an avenue for some of the repressive regimes to get the type of commerce they need without having to deal with conditionality of western powers? >> senator, i'd be happy to respond to that. i addressed may be right you arrived the connection between human rights and democratization in the chinese impact in my on it is although not intentionally, it does have a negative influence on the american desire to see better human rights practices on the continent. if you take specifically women's rights and corruption -- in fact, if you break this into various sectors of the more nuanced situation. i don't see any negative impact in africa of china's activities of women's rights, for example. if it is fair, i just haven't observed it. corruption traditionally has been a problem in that area, but i also see some changes in how china deals with corruption.

i think increasingly they are finding that is not the best way to do business around the world and that it is costing them, too. i see a willingness to perhaps rethink a whole concept of engaging in corruption. we are not there yet, but the trend is in the right direction. you do have to break these down into their individual issues and there will be some areas where chinese influence is not helpful. there will be others where it is essentially mutual and even a couple where it might be helpful. if corporate responsibility is another one where they are beginning to show an interest in improving their policies in africa and around the world as they are in china. they think that is a cooperative area with the united states or its a much better record on corporate social responsibility they are going to be more hopeful on that item. >> do you see any indication that china is importing technology into africa that could be used to repress human

rights advances such as cell phone jamming their internet access that type of type knowledge he, which china certainly has used in its own country? is that being exported to africa by repressive regimes? >> there is some indication of that. it's definitely occurred in zimbabwe number of years ago. even in ethiopia where they are deeply involved in the the communication sector, ethiopia has a restrictive policy on handling of the government. at least until very recently, in fact when i was. at least until very recently, in fact when i was july of last year i try to access my own blog at the hilton hotel and i couldn't access it. i have some of the ethiopian friends what's going on here? vacated it to my own blog. they laughed and said you didn't know anything on blogspot is blocked in ethiopia and that is thanks to the technical assistance of the chinese. in the last several months i see

in accounts on that thought come ethiopians are now accessing it, so something has changed. but there has been some evidence of cheney's assisting certain governments in restricting information flow. >> do you have any suggestions how the international community could try to counter those types of activities quiet >> there probably are technical ways to do it. i am just not knowledgeable about it. the only other way to approach is simply continuing to raise issues that china and with the african governments. in the first instance, this is a problem with the government concerned because they are the ones who are authorizing more restrictive practices and i'm sure we do have tax all the time at the africans. i don't know whether we have discussions with the chinese are not. >> of course, it also says we should be more aggressive than africa. we have more ties and there are

more avenues for us to be able to exercise our influence than we could have a better way of dealing with it the type of relationships with china that are to. >> would certainly agree we be more aggressive in africa, but not to the point where we are pushy. i think there's a finite one has to draw between being aggressive on policy and then overstepping bounds of the like were trying to boss everyone around. >> i agree with that, but we've had many hearings on this. the u.s. particularly in the age programs has to have a strong position on anticorruption, women's rights, those issues because if not, what do we stand for? >> i would agree. >> trant thank you, mr. chairman. >> trant to a thank you and senator isaacs and for bringing

down this for three great witnesses. i think it is so important in terms of what all of you have pointed out that my two other guys and that is that the degree of knowledge on the part of the congress and what have you about africa is certainly a great improvement because the extent we haven't proved that with our business is largely come about because there is support of business in america for making the investments in the risk-taking, but also support by their stockholders and their constituencies because people say why africa? why that market? and the fact is that we progress as a nation and have not been as attentive or compared to or compared to those who might be because we don't know about africa. the basic facts of life about the 54 countries then much of the information you've given us to date will be news to many

people and hopefully will be conveyed by the media. what i am hearing however and this oversimplifies, we do have, as senator cardin is pointed out very strong ideas and they are good ones about human rights. and we intend to approach foreign policy in that way and we should. i'll contrast that with the chinese who have a very businesslike at it to the air continuity depends upon having energy resources in particular at this date for their growth and for whatever comfort bike onto the chinese people. lakeway's increasingly of reports about the amount of farming, agriculture and food that will be coming out of china to feed the people of china. in other words, their existential problems regarded to continuity of their nationstates, which i dare. so as a result, the chinese may

or may not care for any of the government they are, that these are the people with whom they do business. we look at those governments and we find corruption, lack of democracy and what have you. our tendency is to want to fixate, to try to move people around in this fashion, much less attentive maybe to the business aspects. i'm not suggesting we followed the chinese model, but two different situations sort of passing in the same continent. and we should not be surprised by the testimony you are getting. but i am curious about down the trail however is either reasonable estimates as to how much oil and natural gas are in reserves in china. this is a great problem. i always ask around the world. again and again, the time of reckoning is pushed back to a later date because moorestown.

but i am curious that early as to what happens at the end of the trail with these resources become more expensive to whoever is going after. as a matter of fact in some african countries who if they develop for an estimated use resources themselves is no longer an option. likewise with agriculture, it would here we have been inhibited by european ideas on genetically modified seed and so so african cut trees have low production rates. whatever the chinese are taking out notwithstanding, the fact is africans will find it increasingly difficult to feed themselves apart from distract it. this from the standpoint of africa, what are the resources? are they boundless? does it depend on the degree of development by somebody? how would you predict the future

of these markets? however we approach them come united states or china. >> i was just part of that. i do not have data on the resources in africa and i'm not sure anyone does. as prices go up, more resources are found and that's the case for a long, long time. now we find all over west africa and along the coast, countries and never thought they had oil resources suddenly found them and of course their countries are active as chinese companies breaking it out without so far success. i want to say something about the chinese that they are leaving the land in africa and it's one of the years i've been looking at the international food policy institute where i am now. and what we find if there is actually no evidence of various large chinese engagement in africa to grow food to ship back to china at all. it doesn't exist with the small exception of sesame seeds, which is no vital resource.

there is some chinese investment in agriculture for local function. in c. and the others 25 chinese firms for the zambian market, but they are not doing it speculatively and investments. what we see as american and european firms largely bare. for investment for feeding people at home, it is the goal states in the arab world doing that in india, but not safari china. so one other point about our different concerns about governance and that is the night hank coming up in this hearing earlier, we both care about stability. and what china and many of its friends in africa sees the united states are engaging with china and china does not have good human rights record and yet we are all their investing and trading quite actively and they are becoming more prosperous. that is something important for framing as well. small and it got about

governance. in sierra leone after the war there was an election and the presiding government laws, but they didn't want to give up power for various reasons. a group of ambassadors went to talk and so you've got to step down to lecture upon a command. amongst a group of ambassadors as the chinese ambassador. this engagement at the ambassadorial level is something we need to do more than we do not do enough in most of the countries are familiar with. thank you. >> senator, you are right in terms of the gml issue. it's one of the important issues that needs to be addressed in the united states needs to press them more. china is open to that so there may be another area where china-u.s. could cooperate in breaking what i think is essentially european blockade of american agriculture. i don't think there are many u.s. ad companies in africa. i think it's a major problem.

i think the major opportunity for u.s. business. there's enormous opportunity for agriculture in the u.s. are especially leaders in the world in that area. [inaudible] >> absolutely right. >> senator, if i could just be to the oil question. 10% of the worlds oil reserves are in africa today. the experts think as we look to the future, the continent is going to come up with a large percentage of new fines will be africa because it's so relatively under word so far. the experts also say that china's% of imports is going to continue to grow at a significant rate. the declining production or a combination of both. those two trends china africa will become increasingly important in the years ahead.

>> we are counting on 25% of our oils needs to be met by africa by 2020. i think that is going to be an increase in competitive environments, although yes there is more oil being discovered. >> basher i went and that was that we had 30 many beating and 25 minutes i asked president bellis incidentally, what is the story about the presidents of china in ethiopia? that went on for 35 are minutes am basically a straightforward. china has said. china is the best in africa and we have noticed it, he says in terms of the chinese and interest in our energy, raw materials, cheap labor

opportunities for a growing middle-class to buy their products. and they said they come in with confessional as many times. just payback as long as the chinese contractors and there's a pretty substantial presence of chinese in ethiopia and many other african countries so they clearly have a plan and they're executing it. one european foreign minister told me, there's one other factor you this. i'll do business again a buddy. the rules are very relaxed as long as it meets their economic needs. so when i put together here is a bill that senator coons has joined me on to improve exports to africa and our business in africa and investments in africa and try to coordinate this the launch of agencies that we had that don't seem to work as well together as they should.

the most significant thing out of the hearing discount what i've just said. i started with the presentation, which really tells the big story here about the fact that we are spending a significant amount of money with different things than the chinese. we are investing in people and health care. most of us know the global fund trying to find ways to alleviate human suffering from aids and malaria and tuberculosis all around the world. at least here's the u.s. has given a billion dollars to one of the largest funds. china between 2003 in 2011 and received $550 million to the

global fund grants. another $200 million is pending. china's global fund contribution of her recent years equaled $16 million. $5.5 million. so we are clearly putting money into africa and we've decided we need to focus part of our commitment in two of the fiend human suffering and death. there's an interesting article given to me about the recent election that became the past five between the economic presence in zambia and the ambassador and ridiculed the writers saying you send election judges, with the hospitals and roads and a trend that we spend $400 million a year keeping 300,000 zombie and to live with antiretroviral drugs. so we are spending money they are in different ways and i guess it's going to have to be its own reward.

the last thing before opening up to your thoughts in saint oecd, i do shorthand, which says no bribery. which you suggest is if we can get china to play by rules we are playing by, we might have a better competitive situation with them. if they are not going to play by their rules, we may not have as good of a chance. so how do you overcome this? we are not strictly mercantile. we're trying to alleviate and play by rules on corruption and human rights. we have our hands tied behind her back? ambassador shinn? >> senator, one of the problems we face in you mentioned your meeting with prime ministerslen, ethiopia is one of the major recipients of the global fine. it's also a major recipient of bilateral hava support from the united states government. the problem is a combination of

hiv/aids money and emergency food aid is probably two thirds of all american assistance to africa today that is taken for granted by the africans. we just don't get the credit for that we deserve quite frankly, whereas the chinese can go with a love that has to be paid back albeit concessionary financings, build a road or atm or a bridge. and all of a sudden it's a chinese road or the chinese dam or chinese branch and everyone in the vicinity knows about it. you get all sorts of credit for it. it's very smart in their part to do it and it puts us in a difficult position because were simply not getting the credit we rightly deserve, even from someone as sophisticated as prime minister malice. he knows the numbers better than any of us in this room. but i do know how you do with that issue. maybe just the nature. i would like to make a pitch for one organization that is not to mention in terms of what the

u.s. government can do and that his support for the overseas and it's a small organization i used to deal when i was ambassador and i found it to be an effective organization and what it did, but it's very small. >> mr. hayes, you said we should be shifting usaid towards the private sector. that says to me, spend less on health health care in educating young women more on establishing mercantile, business relationships. >> i think we've got to look at a greater balance certainly in a period and how we use that and also there are other ways beyond simply money in terms of training, capacity, ability and so forth. so yes, i think we need to put more emphasis on building a middle class because they think it may be other money that we are spending less needed ultimately.

>> their hiv retroviral drugs he would be some of them cut off in the name of establishing a business relationship. >> i am not convinced that it's in neither our choice. >> with this budget it is. >> i think the issues of commercial offices, stronger commercial presence, to africa once every 10 years. >> it has been 10 years since the secretary of commerce visited. there's other ways to develop those ties. >> i want to give you one last word if you type. >> ultimately africans in the future will have to pay for their own health care in the long-term. how are they going to have foundation to do that? bought to build up their business sector and tax them and have to be able to get to the revenues. cheney's approach looking at infrastructure and business education is moving toward that kind of future, where our approach, which is laudable in many ways the amount of money we

put in health care in africa keeps a lot of our people live. we don't do anything but provide jobs for them. >> thank you, senator durbin. our last questions today will come from senator udall. >> thank you, chairman coons and thank you does for what it is hearing. i want to focus a little and i think it was very important we got into the human rights issues and corruption in all the issues that senator durbin just raised. i want to focus a little on environmental issues. you mentioned professor shinn in your testimony that china has four hard interests in africa. and you mention as one of those, i'm one of the four energy minerals, timber and agricultural products. obviously see if you are talking about the mood like to see assume our policy is sustainable economic development that we do

these things, you can develop energy and minerals in timber and agriculture in such a way that you do it sustainably that you do it where you don't harm the environment. he mentioned dance, build dams in such a way that she don't dislocate local people. i know there is a that has been mentioned here recently on them is that the chinese are funding, where 300,000 kenyans would be deprived of their water needed for agriculture, cattle herding and fishing. and that the real -- my question is looking at how western countries and mainly the western developed countries participate in africa and how their product to says compare with the chinese. and what you see there. what are the things that we can do about -- if there is a

disparity and they are not practicing sustainable practices, than what we do to try to encourage them to do so? the other witnesses may also have comment on this, so please why don't you lead off? >> thank you, senator. that's an interesting question and it also very kindly lent. if you were to go back five, six years and look at chinese projects in africa and the environmental consequences of those projects, you would have a fairmont to criticize. there was for example a plan to develop iron ore. the problem is that in order to do so they would have to largely with the below quote in part been able to achieve that little project. there was so much opposition from local environmental groups and it's being revisited in terms of how you deal with it. china does not have a great record on environmental issues.

western projects i think across the board must have environmental impact assessments with them. it's certainly true in american products in most western governments have traditionally not been the case at many of the chinese projects. this is the good news story. i think you're starting to see a change in the chinese approach to how they deal environmentally, not only with their projects overseas, but what is happening in china. i think the gorges dam has been a wake-up call. they see environmental negative impacts from construction and causes them to rethink how they deal with the environment in china and that impacts how they do it projects outside of china and you are hearing more and more about chinese actually employing outside western countries have environmental impact statements and that would've been unheard of five or six years ago.

>> you see that as a real improvement for them for weighing in on these issues of how do you balance sustainability is still get what you need for this country? >> i see it as an improvement, but they are well behind countries in getting to the part where they need to be. the trend is in the right direction. >> is there more we can do to encourage to do this kind of thing? >> again, other than having these conversations at senior levels of the appropriate chinese officials and also the african officials who are signing these agreements with china, they need to understand that there has to be an environmental impact statement and assessment before you go ahead with the project. i think that this was just have to do it to keep a three dam project in ethiopia that connects lake turkana in kenya.

>> that's the one i was referring to. >> at his rate of fire storm and even among some ethiopians displaced as a result of construction of the day appeared on the other hand, the region desperately needs for hydropower so there have to be offsets here. better environmental studies are clearly needed by the african countries and in terms of the chinese who are doing a lot of these projects. >> i agree with ambassador thank you, mr. chairman. 's assessment happening with chinese fanciers. corporate responsibility as a concept had adopted his practices. it took us a while to get there. i was young when the word bank was the big problem that during this regard, funding these kinds of projects overseas and eventually they change. the chinese will change in the future and we future emergency funds already.

the way this change happens is in part due to pressure from outside that comes from different angles from the u.s. department, civil society and informed analysis. the pressure is not coming from african government. and the chinese standards surprisingly are higher in china than they are in most parts of africa. so that is part of the challenge that we have a new actor here. we have a change as well. the chinese have actually made overseas bribery into a claim in china. so that was never the case before. it just happened recently is produced the signing of the u.n. convention against corruption. it's very near what we know a lot of partners in europe are enforcing very well, but this is a change in these are the kinds of things we see signs as an aside to know about those in encourage them.

>> mr. hayes, do you have any thoughts on this? >> i have thoughts, but it's not too different from what you heard he heard. i think our diplomacy, particularly with the african government in this case needs to be strengthened. >> the one thing i would note and turned my time back is apparently in dr. thank you, mr. chairman. , correct me if i am wrong, but i think having to do with it and. is that correct that there was eis stand at the world bank and they just went ahead? >> i don't know the answer to that whether they did or not. i would be better not to comment on it. >> as you noted, i have the

report here that says this favor is responsible for 90% of the water heading into lake turkana, a major dam broke in the river would train most of the lake depriving 300,000 kenyans of the water needed for agriculture, prodigal herding endosomal river could this fact to changes in it that we are talking about. i think you mentioned could affect 70% or more of an important species around the lake. so you know, that is major damage being done by a major part of their effort in terms of their though they put out there. so thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate you holding this hearing. >> thank you, senator udall. unfortunately we've reached 3:30. we had a briefing to which all senders need to turn now.

i want to thank you for her much for sharing your insights and expertise on these critically important subjects that have significant implications for the economic and political future of the united states, china and people of africa. there's so many remaining interesting questions i would like to debate about intellectual property protection, rule of the other first nations, will collateral needs more effectively engaging with china and ways to develop shared standards for everything from labor protections to environmental protections to advancing human rights and ways to diversify the economic opportunity of africans going forward. but we'll have to wait for some super opportunity. with that, i will conclude today's meeting, think the witnesses that would keep the record open for senators to submit until the close of business thursday, november november 3rd. thank you very much. this hearing is hereby adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in today. they will continue work in a $60 billion spending package for transportation infrastructure. this is the second piece of president obama's jobs plan. mitch mcconnell at also expected to offer his own version of the service transportation proposal. both sun motions will happen today around 3:00 p.m. eastern. they also expect to debate onto judicial nomination during today's session. this is live coverage of the the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets

are hid, cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of your holy spirit that we may perfectly love you and worthily magnify your holy name. look with mercy upon our senators and use them to heal the brokenness in our land. may they use their talents to lead people to replace fear with faith, cynicism with courage, and division with unity. keep them from the forces that

impede them from doing your will. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., november 3, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: the senate will debate

s. 1769 and s. 1786. one is a democratically sponsored infrastructure bill, the other is a republican sponsored. the time until 3:00 will be equally divided and controlled by between the two leaders or their designees. at about 30:00 there will be up to two roll call votes. the first will be on the motion to proceed on s. 1769, the rebuild america jobs act. if that is up successful there will be a second vote on a motion to proceed to s. 1786. both motions will require 60 votes. we expect votes on a number of judicial nominations today. mr. president, yesterday evening i called my friend from searchlight, nevada, named arthur frajello. arthur's family has been in searchlight for 345e7b many years.

-- many, many years. his mom and dad have passed away but i keep in touch with him. he's a wonderful, hard-working man. i said where are you today, arthur? he said i'm at work. you're kidding. where are you? he said this project out by primm. a big solar project. i said how long you been working? i don't remember what he said, a matter of weeks. the first job he's had in three years. an ironworker. he's working now and he's very, very happy. here is an ironicworker, construction worker that has finally found a job. mr. president, we have in nevada thousands of other people who have been out of work for a long period of time, construction workers just like arthur. most of them aren't fortunate enough to have a job that he has. and that's what our legislation is all about. the legislation we'll vote on this afternoon deals with putting people back to work,

hundreds of thousands of construction workers. and, mr. president, this is a bill that's not more deficit spending, it's a bill that's paid for. and it's not an attack on millionaires and billionaires. many millionaires and billionaires are very fortunate that they may not in a given year make a million dollars but they still have assets and they're millionaires and billionaires. so what we've done is made sure that a small percentage of americans would help us put people like arthur back to work. and it's what -- what we have suggested in our legislation is so reasonable and so fair, what we're saying is that people who make all this money, more than a million dollars a year, should contribute to this restructuring of our economy. the splan by asking these people to contribute just a little more

to get the economy back on track. mr. president, we're not asking all millionaires and billionaires, we're asking people who make more than a million dollars a year to pay a little bit extra. it's the right thing to do. it amounts to .2% of the people who make money in america. .2%. it's unbelievable that the republicans have lined up in the past and we've heard they're going to do the same thing today in unanimous opposition to this commonsense plan supported by people all over america. not democrats only, not independents only, but democrats, independents, and republicans. americans are crying for jobs, they're crying for us to pass this bill.

this would put 3,000 or 4,000 people to work in nevada. i think that's extremely important and every state is the same. i talked to my friend yesterday from new mexico. the state of new mexico, senator bingaman, the senior senator from new mexico said it would put 4,000 people to work in new mexico. new mexico's competent economy is not as troubled as nevada's but they're not doing as well as they have in years past. this legislation levies a small tax on the top .2% of american taxpayers. these are the same americans whose income has increased 275% over the last three decades. mr. president, the top 1% of these people in america make as much as the other 99% put together. and we're being told that well, we would like to help you, but we've taken a tax pledge, a tax

pledge. from this person named grover norquist. as alan simpson said, does that mean more than your country? and if it does, alan simpson says you shouldn't be in congress. the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: we're going to see two very different approaches to infrastructure and job creation today. the american people can decide for themselves which one makes more sense. the republican proposal extends the current highway bill for another two years, giving states and contractors the certainty they need to start new infrastructure projects and to create jobs.

the legislation senator hatch is proposing today puts an end to the uncertainty for the next two years. this proposal also gives states the authority to decide how this money is spent. if folks in ohio or kentucky want to build a bridge, washington can't force them to build a bike path. the republican proposal accelerates the review period and clears away the bureaucratic red tape. the president admitted a few months ago that the shovel-ready projects in his first stimulus bill didn't turn out to be as shovel-ready as he thought. our proposal helps make sure they are. our bill prohibits the e.p.a. from imposing burdensome and unnecessary new regulations on american cement producers and domestic boilers. so the cost of american-made materials for the projects paid for through this highway bill don't skyrocket just as they're set to begin. the bill keeps those costs down.

best of all, it's fully paid for through funds that were originally promoted -- appropriated for another purpose but not spent. whatever is left over after these projects are funded goes to pay down the deficit. now, the democrats are taking a different approach. first, according to could be -- c.b.o. the proposal will do little for the economy and putting people back to work in the short term because the money will be spent very gradually. according to c.b.o. less than 1/10 of the funds will be spent next year, less than 1/10 of the funds in the democratic proposal we'll be voting on later today will be spent next year. and roughly 40% won't be spent until after 2015. after 2015. this hardly matches the president's call for doing something, quote, "right away." second, it costs another

$57 billion we don't have. third, they want to pay for this temporary spending bill with a permit -- permanent tax increase on job creators. they want to pay for a temporary spending bill with a permanent tax hike on job creators. and fourth, they already know that republicans and yes, some democrats don't think we should be taxing job creators particularly at a time when 14 million americans are looking for a job and that we'll vote against any proposal that does so. in other words, the democrats have deliberately designed this bill to fail, deliberately designed the bill to fail. so the truth is, democrats are more interested in building a campaign message than in rebuilding roads and bridges. and frankly, the american people deserve a lot better than that. the people of kentucky deserve a lot better than that. the people in my state have serious time-sensitive bridge

projects. the brent-spence bridge, the i-969, the louisville bridges, the sherman minton bridge which is currently shut down. they deserve better than this. the associated contractors of america and the u.s. chamber of commerce have already spoken out against the democratic proposal. the rest of the american people can decide which approach they prefer. our proposal which doesn't add to the deficit, doesn't raise taxes, empowers the states to make decisions on the local level, and is designed to gain bipartisan support or, the democrats' top-down approach which perpetuates uncertainty, raises taxes on business at a time we should be giving them more reasons to hire, not hess less, and which is designed in coordination with the white house political team to fail. these are the two approaches on display in the senate today. the choice, mr. president, should be obvious. mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the highway bill has

been worked on for months by senator boxer, the chairman and the ranking member, senator inhofe. and they've arrived at a conclusion. i had a are conversation yesterday with senator inhofe and they've worked out almost all the details on that bill. that bill we have to do something on that, because it expires at the end of this year. first of february i believe. mr. president, my friend the republican leader who i care a great deal about personally is absolutely wrong. the american people support our approach, 76% of the american people like it, of all political definitions support it. why? because it's so fair. we're asking the top .2% of people who make money in this country to contribute a surtax of .7% of the money they make

over a million dollars. job creators? i don't think so. the funding mechanism that the republicans use this time is in violation of the agreement that we made last july. we have an agreement. we have cut domestic screngs enough -- discretionary spending enough. that was the agreement we made and they come back and they whack it more which i repeat is going back on our august agreement on how much we're spending on appropriations. not only that, but the republicans do what they've done, time and time again, mr. president, we all know that we would be better off if we didn't have as many regulations as we have and that's why every president plug president bush -- including president bush and president clinton have done the best they could to eliminate unnecessary regulations. president obama is doing the same thing. so the republicans come here and say the way to create jobs is to get rid of regulations and on

this way of paying for this, this smoke and mirrors that they have, they're going -- they want to block the implementation of the health care reform, more cost to uninsured americans, block walk reforms, increasing the chance of future bailouts. can you imagine at this stage in the world we want to increase the power of those on wall street? i don't think the american people care about that. they want to block antipollution protections leading to dirty air and more premature deaths and illness, weaken worker safety protections. i of course will urge my entire caucus to vote against this because it is a typical approach that the republicans have used and it has not created a single job. a single job. there's commentary in today's newspapers about what the house has been doing. they haven't done anything to create a job.

that extremely powerful republican caucus they have, nothing to create jobs. nothing. now, mr. president, i'm glad that we have a motto that says, "in god we trust." can you imagine yesterday they voted on that, whether we wanted that in our -- we wanted to underline and underscore, "in god we trust." they spent yesterday debating that issue in the house of representatives. that didn't create a single job. there is not a single united states senator that does not trust in god that i know of. they're debating that while people like arthur fra diswjehoe desperate for work, been out of work for years? not a single thing to create jobs. the legislation we'll vote on at 3:00 will produce hundreds of thousands of jobs now. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: my good friend just made a great campaign speech but the election is in november of next year.

if we want to accomplish something, we have to do it together, and we've had a series of votes here over the last few weeks clearly designed to fail. the proposal my good friend is talking about in all likelihood is going to have bipartisan opposition, not developed with republican input and not designed to get an outcome. the house of representatives on 15 different occasions recently has passed bills with bipartisan support -- bipartisan support -- that we're not taking up. now, one of them, the 3% withholding bill, enjoys the support of the president of the united states as well. and it's my hope that in the very near future we can figure a way to actually pass something together that would become law. i wish we could put off the election until next year because

these efforts to do these messaging amendments as politically invigorating as it may to be the base of the democratic party, don't have anything to do with actually passing legislation that could have a positive impact. and so we will have the two votes today but i would urge my good friend to join me in looking for things upon which there is enough bipartisan support to actually make a law, not just try to make a point. i'm sure that it is the case that most americans support raising taxes on high-income individuals. my guess is they might have a different view if they knew that four out of five of those individuals would actually business owners. nevertheless, it's time, it seems to me, for us to quit making the campaign speeches and

remember the election is in november of 2012, not this month of 2011, and see if we can't work together to pass legislation that the president can sign that will help move the country in a different direction. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: my friend, the republican leader, comes before this body today and says we should do our campaign speeches next year. when the world knows that my friend has said his number-one priority in this congress is to defeat president obama. we have had here for the last 10 months a campaign speech every day directed by my friend, through his republican colleagues and his caucus, doing everything they can to make president obama look bad. doing nothing that will help our economy. their goal is to do everything they can to drag down this economy, to do anything they can to focus attention negatively on

the president of the united states in hopes that he can get my job, perhaps, and that president obama will be defeated. so let's not talk about campaign speeches here on the senate floor. let's talk about reality. i do not believe that we should be concerned about a piece of legislation that asks the richest of the rich to pay a few pennies of their vast fortunes to put people like my friend back to work. that's what this is all about. the american people agree with what we're doing. we're trying to have this government involved in things that create jobs not slogans, not let's get rid of those regulations, do we believe in god, you know, that kind of stuff. mr. president, they -- that has not created a single job. what we want to do is create jobs. and we also, mr. president, don't want to go back on the agreement that we had that we

worked on for months, the deficit-reduction plan, raising the debt ceiling, where we agreed on what our spending should be for this coming year. and we'll see how sincere that my republican colleagues are. the c.r. expires now in two more weeks. the c.r. is a continuing resolution. let's see if they go back on their word in that regard, that they're going to again threaten down -- threaten shutting down the government if they don't get whatever slogan that looks good during any specific period of time. we had f.a.a. that is about go to have go out of business again because the republicans are unwilling to pass a bill without some labor issue that has nothing to do with the bill that was passed, zero to do with it. even delta airlines, who has been the focus of this, the person that runs that company wants the f.a.a. bill done. they're not -- they don't -- they recognize that they've been hurt very, very badly by what the republicans have done to focus attention on them,

attention they don't want focused on them. so i would hope, mr. president, that i -- that we can do things that are good for the country on a bipartisan basis. and i think creating jobs is one of the most important things we can do. and i would say to my friend, we can stay here all day. i will get the last word so we can -- we can -- we can -- it's 10:20 now. if we want to extend until 11:20, i'm going to get the last word on our conversation here today. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, it certainly is the case that the majority leader can always have the last word but i would say, with all due respect to my friend, he just made another campaign speech. i think what the american people would like to see us do is actually pass something together that will become law. pass something together that will become law. that's how you get an accomplishment under the u.s. constitution. that's how you send it to the president. and we know how to work together to make things happen. we've done that in the past. all i'm suggesting is the

exercise we're going to have later today has nothing to do with making law and making a difference. it's about making a point. and we both know how to do that. we both know how to make points and make laws. what we're doing later today is not about making laws. now, i'm told by staff that i need to move to -- i move to proceed to s. 1786. the presiding officer: the motion will be pending. mr. reid: mr. president, i would -- the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i would finally say this. i hope we will have a new dawn arising soon where we will see my republican friends break away from this lock step they've been in. i can't imagine that they really believe they're doing the right thing by voting against asking the richest of the rich, .2 of

the richest people in america -- .2% of the richest people in america -- not contributing a small amount to creating jobs in america today. that's what this is all about. and i would hope someday we'll see a few republicans break from the pack and vote to create jobs rather than try to defeat president obama. -- come next november. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1769, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of s. 1769, a bill to put workers back on the job while rebuilding and modernizing america. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 3 chock p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designeedesignees. the motion to proceed to senate 1786 is also the matter of the

senate. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: mr. president, while growth -- i've been asked in -- interested in the comments between the two leaders and i have to agree with the republican leader that this is an exercise in many ways in futility because there -- the bill brought forth by the other side has very little chance of passing through both houses of congress. because it's a partisan bill. now, let me just mention a few things they're morning. while growth remains sluggish in our economy, unemployment high and job growth insufficient to drive unemployment lower, the number of pages in the federal register is at an all-time high. pages devoted to final rules rose by 20% between 2009 and 2010 and proposed rules have also risen by close to 20% to

24 -- to 2,439 in 2010. of the 4,257 regulatory actions already in the pipeline, 219 are considered economically significant, meaning they are -- they are estimated to impose the cost of $100 million or more on the economy. by comparison, that is 28 more than this time last year and 47% more than in 2009. in total, the obama administration's imposed 75 new major regulations costing over $38 billion annually. we wonder why our country's in such trouble. the minutes of the late september meeting of the federal reserve monetary policy-making committee reveal that in talking to businesses and market participants, many contacts have -- quote -- "cited uncertainty about regulatory and tax policies as contributing to

businesses' reluctance to spend." if businesses are not spending because of regulatory uncertainty, then their customers will see lack of demand for their products. the lack of demand explanation for economic sluggishness offered by the administration and its containsy an advisors begs the question why there's a lack of demand. while there are several reasons, the fed clearly identifies one of them: uncertainty about regulatory policies. indeed, uncertainty regarding future regulatory policies as a contributing factor for business reluctance to hire and invest, has been cited in minutes of the past three policy-making meetings of the fed's monetary policy-making committee. and those identifying that such uncertainty is impeding job creation are american businesses and not government bureaucrats insulated from the front lines

of businesses and not their keynesean advisors. they are the boots on the ground in the american economy, the very people who create jobs, most of whom are small business people. the legislation that i am introducing -- or i have introduced seeks, in part, to ease the burden of federal regulations on businesses, including smaller and younger businesses whose vibrancy is critical for job creation and to provide a rational regulatory decision-making process to provide greater certainty to businesses about the future regulatory environment. provisions in this act represent ideas that have garnered bipartisan support. indeed, many of the provisions follow directly from the president's own jobs council. the president's council on jobs and competitiveness, which according to the council -- quote -- "was created to provide nonpartisan advice." i'm talking about the bill that we have filed on this side. the jobs council presented recommendations to president obama on october 11, 2011, in

pittsburgh, pennsylvania. those recommendations stem from the council's interim report titled -- quote -- "taking action, building confidence: five commonsense initiatives to boost jobs and competitiveness." many of the provisions in my act stem directly from recommendations in the council's report. and from the report's called for a more rational -- call for a more rational regulatory s. mr. president, allow me to offer some quotes and comments related to the president's jobs council interim report recommendations in the context of this act. first, the president's job council says that -- quote -- "the nation's complex federal, state and local permitting system can lead to unnecessary delays. in fact, large department of transportation projects can spend years getting the required environmental impact statement process completed urn the national environmental -- under the national environment policy act, or nepa."

i agree. and this legislation, my legislation promotes more efficient regulation to rein in some of the burdensome federal red tape that stymies transportation infrastructure projects and job creation. at the same time it fully recognizes environmental and safety concerns surrounding those projects. relative to those concerns the president's job council remarks that -- quote -- what's gotten less attention is the number of jobs at stake." second, the president's job council states -- quote -- markets face uncertainty, performance standards are all in the flux "unquote. i agree. and this legislation serves to promote rational decisionmaking with review of rules and regulations that are of major economic significance required

the approval of the very rule that would impose major costs on the u.s. economy and job creators. third, the president's josh council states that -- job council states that -- quote -- there is broad consensus that a key step towards jump-starting economic growth would be removing regulatory barriers and simplifying overly complex government processes. their inefficiencies cost businesses time and money "unquote. i agree and this legislation seeks through rational reviews to remove unnecessary and costly regulatory barriers and provide simpler, more rational government regulatory processes. fourth, the president's jobs council says -- this is the president's job council -- it says referring to executive orders to review regulations that -- quote -- unfortunately the executive orders mandating regulatory analysis and review did not apply to i.r.c.'s,

independent regulatory commissions, such tass securities and exchange commission or the comot futures trading commission because the law won't allow it. while some may employ economic analysis when crafting new regulations many do not routinely do so. for example in 2010 i.r.c.'s issued 17, 16 of which which were promulgated by the federal reserve system. none underwent the comprehensive impact am sis or included the cost-benefit analysis that is expected from executive branch agencies. the council therefore recommends that legislation be passed that requires i.r.c.'s conduct, that they conduct cost benefit analysis for all economically significant regulatory actions that may have an annual impact on the economy of

$1,100,000,000 -- $100 million or more as well as any significant guidance that meets the same threshold, unquote. i agree this legislation will provide, this one that we have filed on this side, this legislation will provide come oversight on any such performed by i.r.c.'s like the securities and exchange commission and the federal reserve and the commodity -- commodities futures trading commission and other federal regulators for economically significant actions. fifth, the president's job counsel says these recommendses are not designed to weaken regulatory agencies but rather to improve the rule making process and to create more effective and less burdensome regulations that will promote economic growth and job recovery of the "unquote. i agree. and the republican legislation

promotes a rational regulatory system with improved rule making oversight to create more effective and less burdensome regulations in order to promote jobs growth. i agree also with the spirit of the jobs council remarks that efforts like this legislation far from, quote, gutting, unquote regulations and quote threatening safety, unquote, will promote economic efficiency and renewed job creation. the call for rational regulation in rulemaking is no way of a gutting of regulations or sacrifice of public safety or of environmental quality efforts. we all know that rules and regulations are quite likely to continue to grow and evolve. this legislation seeks only to put rational decisionmaking into the foundation of our regulatory and rule making processes that are too often driven by special interests of largely unaccountable and fully unelected federal regulatory bureaucrats wishing to impose their preferences on america's

job creators. mr. president, proponents of the so-called infrastructure bank have actively cited in recent advocacy speeches findings from global competitiveness at the world economic forum. well, if rating -- if ratings from the world economic forum guide their views, and guys them to advocate hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer resources for a risky new g.s.e. that they call an infrastructure bank, let's look at what the forum has to say regarding the united states. first, in their recent global commemorativeness report in what are called, quote, the most problematic factors for doing business in america, unquote, the top four factors out of 15 are tax rates, number one, inefficient government

bureaucracy, number two, access to financing, number three, and tax regulations, number four. inadequate fly of infrastructure rates, number ten, right below policy stain built and restrictive labor regulations. there you have it. the global competitiveness report that the administration, my friends on the other side of the aisle use to advocate a risky infrastructure bank places taxes and inefficient government bureaucracy as the top two leading problems in doing business in america. those of the top two factors that are holding back job growth and a brand-new risky infrastructure bank bureaucracy funded by permanent higher taxes would only make those problems worse. by contrast, the legislation that i offer directly addresses inefficient government bureaucracy by acting to ease the inefficient regulatory

burdens imposed on job creators by largely unaccountable and unelected federal bureaucracies throughout our government bureaucracy maze and their special interests. and i might add these -- those regulatory agencies seem clearly not to have job creation and easing of the flight plight of america's 14 million unemployed workers as part of their main interests. mr. president, the legislation that i am proposing also provides for a fully paid for highway extension through 2013 that will give states and contractors the certainty they need to begin large projects and create jobs. it calls for elimination of dedicated funding for transportation enhancements and gives states the authority to decide whether to spend resources on bike paths or other such transportation add-on ches. it informs the national environmental policy act or nepa to eliminate inpatient bureaucratic environmental red tape to accelerate project

delivery and contracting just as called for by the president's own jobs council. it addresses the bureaucratic red tape associated with the nepa that the president's own jobs council identifies and it contains reforms that receive the support of the department of transportation. it includes a provision to stop environmental protection agency rules that serve to drive up costs of concrete and steel which are key ingredients in the road an construction projects. it includes provisions for waivers of inefficient environmental reviews, approvals and licensing and permitting requirements on road, highway and bridge rebuilding efforts in emergency situations. it imposes a regulatory time-out on regulations to help stem the regulatory tsunami that is impeding job creation. mr. president, we face a national jobs and unemployment emergency. it is truly a crisis.

the federal reserve, the president's own job council, and job creators in utah and across america have made clear that onerous regulations and regulatory uncertainty are acting to cast a wet blanket on job creation in america. and the 14 million unemployed americans are painfully in need of jobs. i and my fellow republicans are listening. the legislation that i propose goes straight to the matter and the interest of job creation now, not years from now once some new unelected federal bureaucracy called an infrastructure bank is up and running to supply taxpayer funds to specially chosen and favored riskryi projects, something we've seen plenty of in this administration. and some administrations in the past as well. the legislation that i propose addresses the repeated calls from job creators who are stymied by inefficient, burdensome regulatory red tape

derived from federal interest bureaucracy rather than the interests of american workers. the legislation that i propose draws from bipartisan recommendations, including recommendations from the president's own bipartisan jobs council. the legislation that i propose accommodates fully paid for infrastructure projects could be undertaken to help build roads, and a host of other projects without imposing job killing higher taxes during a national unemployment emergency. mr. president, i urge all i my colleagues in the senate to support this legislation. this idea of an infrastructure bank is just -- it appears to me to be just a future -- a future example of what fannie and freddie were all about. i think we can do it without having an infrastructure bank, we can do it better, can do it pushing a lot of the president's

ideas forward, a lot of the -- the economic forum's ideas and a lot of ideas that both sides of the aisle have to conclude are important for overcoming this regulatory mess that's making it almost impossible to create jobs and almost impossible to get legislation through this body. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that all of the time -- the speaker pro tempore: the senate is currently in a quorum call. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent the time be divided equally and not charged to one side or the other. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the

senior senator from new hampshire is recognized. mrs. shaheen: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. shaheen: i came to the floor to speak to the legislation that is pending before us, s. 1769, the rebuild america jobs act. this legislation in fact would put literally millions of americans back to work

rebuilding our nation's roads, our bridges, our airports and our railways. the bill that's before us has two components. the first is a direct direct $50 billion federal investment in our infrastructure and it would be split between roads, rail, transit and airport projects. more than half of that would go to our well-established -- well-established formula-driven highway and transit programs and that would include about $132 million for new hampshire. the second piece of this proposal would create an infrastructure bank. that's legislation that i've cosponsored and it has had bipartisan cosponsorship here in the senate. the bank as it's structured would be able to leverage public dollars to attract private capital and that would if it's successful lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure projects over the next ten years.

it's a bipartisan idea, as i said, and it has attracted support from both the afl-cio and the u.s. chamber of commerce, so clearly it's a good idea if it's got both of those organizations on board. together, this legislation pending before us would mean immediate jobs for our construction industry. it's been one of the hardest hit by this recession. in new hampshire, the number of people working in the construction industry in 2010 was the lowest that it's tbhen a decade. it was 25% lower than it was just in 2006 according to the bureau of labor statistics. christian zimmerman, who is the head of one our biggest contractors in new hampshire, pike industries in belmont, told me that he's had to lay off 150 workers in the last couple of years as federal funding to

build new hampshire's roads has run out. the federal highway administration estimates that every $1 billion in highway spending supports more than 27,000 jobs. economists at moody's estimate that for every dollar we spend on infrastructure, our gross domestic product goes up by $1.59. that's because the ripple this spending has in economic activity. there are a number of good reasons to support this that's before us. in the short term, this proposal would help put those who are unemployed in the construction industry back to work. something that would be critical as we're thinking about how do we help the millions in this country who are unemployed and who have been unemployed, many of them for more than a year. in the long term, the benefits of this investment in our infrastructure are equally

important. a quality infrastructure is critical to our businesses, it's critical to our future economic growth, and it's critical to our future competitiveness in the world. according to numerous studies, deteriorating infrastructure costs businesses more than $100 billion a year in lost productivity and there's very good evidence to show that our lack of investment in recent years is making itself felt in the condition of our roads and our bridges. this past june, new hampshire society of civil engineers issued a report card on the condition of our state's roads and bridges, our dams, our wastewater facilities and our airports and our waterways. so those major projects that we all consider part of our infrastructure. sadly, the engineers' report card gave new hampshire's

infrastructure a grade of c. that's better than the grade the national organization has given to the united states as a whole. that was a d. but it's not as good as we want it to be and it's not as good as we need for new hampshire or this country if we're going to continue to be competitive. 15% of new hampshire's bridges are rated structurally deficient by the federal highway administration. 148 of them are red listed. when i first got elected to the state senate, we had a real controversy in new hampshire because we had a highway commissioner who said that because of the number of red listed bridges when we all drove around new hampshire and went over a bridge, we should drive fast and not look back. well, fortunately we're not in that position right now, but we have a lot of our bridges that need investments and this bill before us would provide new hampshire with additional federal highway funding that

would help us address these bridges that are red listed and our other transportation needs. the most important project that could be addressed by this legislation in new hampshire is a project that's been underway for years in the southern part of our state that's been threatened by the uncertainty surrounding federal funding. it's the widening of interstate 93 between southern new hampshire and massachusetts. this project is long overdue, it's badly needed by commuters and businesses in the area. the i-93 project was budgeted and planned bas on the idea that the federal government would provide a consistent level of funding, but, unfortunately, the republican budget that the house has called for would produce a 35% cut in our highway

program, and, unfortunately, congress has not yet been able to reach an agreement on a long-term reauthorization of our highway program. the uncertainty around this and the prospect that a drastic -- of such a drastic cut has made this project, i-93, very difficult to finance. right now, new hampshire transportation officials have $115 million worth of bonding authority for this project that's just sitting on the sidelines because the federal government hasn't made good on our funding commitments. the bill before us today would help complete this critical project for new hampshire, and so many others like it across the country. if we want to see the benefits that investment in infrastructure can provide in new hampshire, we only need to look at the new airport access road that goes to our largest

airport in our largest city of manchester. it's going to open to traffic a full two years ahead of schedule. the project was accelerated because of the funding it received from the recovery act, and i remember going and the winter after we passed the recovery act, looking at the bridge that was being constructed and talking about how we were going to be able to speed up this probably because of those recovery act dollars. well, in fact, it's happened. it's going to open two years early and local planning boards along the manchester access airport access road are already seeing increased interest from commercial developers for the land that's along that road that's been opened up because of this new highway. and, of course, manchester's airport is also going to benefit from the investment in our airport access road.

another piece that's in this legislation that is critical to our infrastructure investment in new hampshire and across the country is the funding for a next-generation system of air traffic control which would transfer our system from a ground-based radar system to a g.p.s.-based system, something most of us have in our cars these days. that would allow the entire airline industry to plan more efficient, point-to-point routes and it would allow everybody to save on fuel costs. i had the opportunity to meet with southwest airlines a couple of weeks ago. it's the largest air carrier in the manchester airport. and they talked to me about the challenges they're facing and the entire airline industry is facing because we haven't invested in this next-generation system of air traffic control. they said it will save us money because it will be more

economical in items of fuel usage because they can go point to point, and it will save time because we can provide for more efficient routes. this is a no-brainer. right now our system of air traffic control is behind even the country of mongolia's. it's time for us to make this investment, to make it easier for airlines to fly into a small hub airport like manchester. it would save us all money. it would be safer. it's an investment that is long overdue. a couple of weeks ago, i also had a chance to speak at an infrastructure summit that the greater manchester chamber of commerce supports for the greater manchester region, and there was a whole day of talking about why investment in our infrastructure is important. because without reliable power,

without reliable bridges and public transportation and roads, businesses can't thrive. the manchester chamber believes that investment in infrastructure is critical to growing our economy and creating jobs, and i share that belief. it's a belief that i came to as a state senator way back over 20 years ago when i served in the manchester -- in the new hampshire state senate. it's something that i continued to support as governor. and in those days, we worked together on a bipartisan basis because we all understood, republicans and democrats, that investing in infrastructure produces returns. new hampshire and the rest of our country needs this investment that's -- that this legislation pending before us would proivment ou -- would provide. our unemployed need the work. our businesses need to know

we're going to make these investments so they can depend on the certainty for their long-term growth and competitiveness. so i would happy to as we come to this vote today on the motion to proceed to this legislation, that my colleagues would, particularly those across the aisle, give up their opposition to this legislation. i know they know how critical it is to invest in our infrastructure. so this is something we all ought to come together around. just because this is a proposal that's been put forward by the president is not a reason not to support it. so i would urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation. let's make these investments. let's put people back to work. let's make sure that we're going to be competitive in the future. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: